38 of them, in fact, in a district with one high school and one middle school. Mishawaka High School alone will be losing 12 teachers. Along with these cuts are 5 administrators and 11 "other jobs," and will still not cover half of the $4.7 million deficit over the next two years.
Let's see here: $1.8 million savings over 2 years in a town of 46,557 people. Pull out my trusty calculator, and according to my calculations we get a tax savings per capita of... $19.33 per person per year. Approximately $1.61 per month.
Clearly there is no alternative to massive teacher layoffs!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
oscars cont.: political controversy in this year's nominees
There are several Oscar movies that delve into political/social issues in a ham-fisted manner and have caused a bit of a stir in the process: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and The Blind Side. Everyone knows about Avatar and its myriad interpretations, with people in all sorts of quarters claiming the movie as their own while conservatives blast it for being anti-American and, quoting John Podhoretz, "blitheringly stupid" (it certainly is the latter, though with respect to the former, it struck me as more broadly anti-imperialistic).
It's The Blind Side that interests me more, however. It only got a 58% fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes, a surprisingly low rating for a Best Picture nominee, and several of the "fresh" reviews are mixed at best. Here's an example, from the Detroit News:
The negative reviews, however, are at times truly vicious, such as one calling it "an ode to white privilege." From the NY Daily News:
Several use the word "cipher" to describe Michael Oher, the kid at the center of the story, and argue that the movie is little more than the sanctification of Sandra Bullock's character. They argue that the book tells a complicated story of race, class, and southern culture wherein the boy Oher is being helped, yes, but also being used, and while so many others are left to rot in west Memphis ghettos.
Again, I have to see it myself before I can make a judgment, but the evidence so far is not promising. But hey, at least it won't have jive-talking robots who can't read, right?
The Hurt Locker's issues are related more to the portrayal of American soldiers. One of the loudest voices crying foul is Paul Rieckhoff, whom I've come to respect through his vocal opposition to the Iraq War. His argument is that the protagonist, William James, is unprofessional and reckless with the welfare of the soldiers in his command and with his own life. This movie, however, got 97% from Rotten Tomatoes, all pretty stellar, so I'm more sanguine about this one (pun intended).
As an aside, looking at the reviews I think it should have been more obvious that The Hurt Locker had an edge over Avatar. As with The Blind Side, the reviews for Avatar tended to have lots of caveats, and one big one in particular: that the actual story is dim-witted and derivative. Similarly, many positive reviews of The Blind Side note the simplistic narrative and notable absence of any attempt to deal with the obvious questions prompted by the narrative and deftly probed by the book. With The Hurt Locker, however, there are few such caveats.
It's The Blind Side that interests me more, however. It only got a 58% fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes, a surprisingly low rating for a Best Picture nominee, and several of the "fresh" reviews are mixed at best. Here's an example, from the Detroit News:
It's a cute, touchy-feely crowd pleaser that wants nothing more than to wrap audiences in a warm holiday embrace. In a sense, it achieves that goal, but it is overly sentimental in a Lifetime movie kind-of-way.
The negative reviews, however, are at times truly vicious, such as one calling it "an ode to white privilege." From the NY Daily News:
Writer-director John Lee Hancock has turned Oher's remarkable life into a Hollywood fable that trades difficult truths for easy clichés.
Several use the word "cipher" to describe Michael Oher, the kid at the center of the story, and argue that the movie is little more than the sanctification of Sandra Bullock's character. They argue that the book tells a complicated story of race, class, and southern culture wherein the boy Oher is being helped, yes, but also being used, and while so many others are left to rot in west Memphis ghettos.
Again, I have to see it myself before I can make a judgment, but the evidence so far is not promising. But hey, at least it won't have jive-talking robots who can't read, right?
The Hurt Locker's issues are related more to the portrayal of American soldiers. One of the loudest voices crying foul is Paul Rieckhoff, whom I've come to respect through his vocal opposition to the Iraq War. His argument is that the protagonist, William James, is unprofessional and reckless with the welfare of the soldiers in his command and with his own life. This movie, however, got 97% from Rotten Tomatoes, all pretty stellar, so I'm more sanguine about this one (pun intended).
As an aside, looking at the reviews I think it should have been more obvious that The Hurt Locker had an edge over Avatar. As with The Blind Side, the reviews for Avatar tended to have lots of caveats, and one big one in particular: that the actual story is dim-witted and derivative. Similarly, many positive reviews of The Blind Side note the simplistic narrative and notable absence of any attempt to deal with the obvious questions prompted by the narrative and deftly probed by the book. With The Hurt Locker, however, there are few such caveats.
the Oscars
Watched it at the O'Zee's place. Was thinking about Zee's question of whether Top Gun (1986) won anything, so I looked it up. It did: it was nominated for Best Sound Effects, Sound Editing, Visual Effects, and won (of all things) Best Original Song for Berlin's "Take My Breath Away".
At first, however, I mistakenly looked at 1987 Oscars (which took place in 1988) as opposed to the 1986 Oscars (which took place in 1987), and I found it much more interesting. What was most striking was the disconnect between the movies the Academy deemed "the best" and which ones have the most cultural currency today.
A trite point, I know, and the Oscars aren't necessarily about movies that will be timeless rather than capturing the zeitgeist, but it's a fun exercise nonetheless.
The "Best Picture" nominees that year were The Last Emperor, Broadcast News, Fatal Attraction, Hope and Glory, and Moonstruck. The Last Emperor won, its last of 9 wins that year. It won in every category for which it was nominated. Other movies that figured prominently in that year's Oscars included Wall Street (for which Michael Douglas picked up "Best Actor"), Ironweed (starring perennial Oscar favorites Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep, both of whom were nominated), and The Untouchables.
Of the Best Picture nominees, Fatal Attraction caused something of a scandal because it was widely thought that it was unworthy of such attention. I might have thought the same thing were I in my 30's in 1987; though I tend to root for "off-genre" movies at the Oscars, in retrospect Fatal Attraction was sickeningly chauvinistic. It is, however, far and away the most memorable of the nominees from my standpoint.
Now let's talk about some of the movies that either had only unsuccessful nominations or were wholly snubbed by the Academy that year:
Regarding this year's ceremony, though, there were some other oddities and interesting facts worth pointing out:
My three favorite movies of the year, Star Trek, The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Where the Wild Things Are, got snubbed. Star Trek won one award on four technical nominations. Fox got two nominations. Wild Things got nothing, not even a single nomination.
At first, however, I mistakenly looked at 1987 Oscars (which took place in 1988) as opposed to the 1986 Oscars (which took place in 1987), and I found it much more interesting. What was most striking was the disconnect between the movies the Academy deemed "the best" and which ones have the most cultural currency today.
A trite point, I know, and the Oscars aren't necessarily about movies that will be timeless rather than capturing the zeitgeist, but it's a fun exercise nonetheless.
The "Best Picture" nominees that year were The Last Emperor, Broadcast News, Fatal Attraction, Hope and Glory, and Moonstruck. The Last Emperor won, its last of 9 wins that year. It won in every category for which it was nominated. Other movies that figured prominently in that year's Oscars included Wall Street (for which Michael Douglas picked up "Best Actor"), Ironweed (starring perennial Oscar favorites Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep, both of whom were nominated), and The Untouchables.
Of the Best Picture nominees, Fatal Attraction caused something of a scandal because it was widely thought that it was unworthy of such attention. I might have thought the same thing were I in my 30's in 1987; though I tend to root for "off-genre" movies at the Oscars, in retrospect Fatal Attraction was sickeningly chauvinistic. It is, however, far and away the most memorable of the nominees from my standpoint.
Now let's talk about some of the movies that either had only unsuccessful nominations or were wholly snubbed by the Academy that year:
- Empire of the Sun
- Raising Arizona. Holly Hunter was nominated that year, but for her role in Broadcast News
- Full Metal Jacket. Stanley Kubrick died having never won Best Director
- The Princess Bride
Regarding this year's ceremony, though, there were some other oddities and interesting facts worth pointing out:
- Morgan Freeman still has never won an Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role, and only has one Supporting Nod (for Million Dollar Baby).
- Lee Daniels (Precious) is the second African American to be nominated for Best Director -- ever. The first was John Singleton, for Boyz in the Hood.
- This was Colin Firth's first nomination
- This was Stanley Tucci's first nomination
- This was Christopher Plummer's first nomination. His first movie role was in 1958
- Sandra Bullock also "won" the Razzie for Worst Actress this year for All About Steve
My three favorite movies of the year, Star Trek, The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Where the Wild Things Are, got snubbed. Star Trek won one award on four technical nominations. Fox got two nominations. Wild Things got nothing, not even a single nomination.
Friday, March 05, 2010
no, Ken Silverstein, it's not
A surprisingly obtuse post today from a normally clear-eyed Ken Silverstein:
Actually, her willingness to represent or defend the representation of both Gitmo detainees and oppressive foreign governments shows that she really does believe the system works best when everyone gets fair representation, no matter who they are or how their position jives with her political agenda. What is Silverstein's accusation, that she'll defend anyone if the price is right (otherwise known as "the job description of a defense attorney")?
TPM ran an item yesterday in which American Bar Association President Carolyn Lamm made an emotional plea on behalf of the principle of legal representation for all. In response “to the Liz Cheney Web ad that questions the loyalty of lawyers who have represented Guantanamo detainees,” Lamm, reported TPM, said that lawyers have an ethical obligation to “provide representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government–even to those accused of heinous crimes against this nation in the name of causes that evoke our contempt.”
Of course, Lamm also strongly believes in the principle of providing legal representation to governments who have committed well-documented heinous crimes against people who stand alone against state power — as long as they pay cash.
Take, for example, Lamm’s own work on behalf of Libya, the former Zaire and Uzbekistan. Her client in the latter case is Gulnara Karimova, bosom buddy of rock star Sting and Bill Clinton. Gulnara’s daddy, Islam, rules Uzbekistan and has a nasty habit of killing his political opponents, in one case by immersion in boiling water.
Lamm’s position is confusing, but one thing is clear: Liz Cheney is not one of her clients.
Actually, her willingness to represent or defend the representation of both Gitmo detainees and oppressive foreign governments shows that she really does believe the system works best when everyone gets fair representation, no matter who they are or how their position jives with her political agenda. What is Silverstein's accusation, that she'll defend anyone if the price is right (otherwise known as "the job description of a defense attorney")?
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Change we can believe in
Being president isn't just about health care reform. It's also about running an effective administration that believes in its mission.
Suck on this, Nestle.
Suck on this, Nestle.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Jason Horowitz or your lying eyes
From the Washington Post:
Talk about f**king retarded! Does anybody believe Barack Obama's problem has been that he didn't compromise enough?
Word around the internets is that these odd pro-Rahm stories suddenly circulating are a PR move by Rahm either as tossing bombs on the way out or an attempt to strong-arm the president into caving on his agenda. What a jackass.
Rahm Emanuel is officially a Washington caricature. He's the town's resident leviathan, a bullying, bruising White House chief of staff who is a prime target for the failings of the Obama administration.
But a contrarian narrative is emerging: Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.
It is a view propounded by lawmakers and early supporters of President Obama who are frustrated because they think the administration has gone for the perfect at the expense of the plausible.
Talk about f**king retarded! Does anybody believe Barack Obama's problem has been that he didn't compromise enough?
Word around the internets is that these odd pro-Rahm stories suddenly circulating are a PR move by Rahm either as tossing bombs on the way out or an attempt to strong-arm the president into caving on his agenda. What a jackass.
Monday, March 01, 2010
the long history of public transportation in America
Some of you may have already noticed, but Atrios has been pulling up some very interesting information lately, specifically old (old like pre-Cold War) maps of public transportation systems in American cities. The findings are striking in how they show that, even aside from the cities known for early adoption of mass transit (San Francisco, Chicago, New York), by the 1930's and 40's most cities actually had surprisingly comprehensive systems of trains and trolleys, some of which have since diminished or disappeared.
The implicit argument is that significant investment in public transit is not at all novel or un-American, but I find the maps interesting even aside from the politics of mass transit.
Just for giggles, I looked up a couple of others:
Grand Rapids, MI, 1927 (this is a proposed streetcar expansion map, but it is clear that in 1929 GR had a significant and widely used streetcar system)
Washington, DC, 1888
Dallas, TX, 1905
- Seattle, 1933
- Detroit, 1941 (in reference to this news article claiming Detroit's about to get its first ever "significant transit line")
- Minneapolis, 1946
The implicit argument is that significant investment in public transit is not at all novel or un-American, but I find the maps interesting even aside from the politics of mass transit.
Just for giggles, I looked up a couple of others:
Grand Rapids, MI, 1927 (this is a proposed streetcar expansion map, but it is clear that in 1929 GR had a significant and widely used streetcar system)
Washington, DC, 1888
Dallas, TX, 1905
Saturday, February 27, 2010
My argument against Tort reform via malpractice caps
A good friend of mine recently put up a pretty long facebook screed about the state of the healthcare thing, and I felt the need to respond. I addressed the entirety of it in an email to him, but since I did all this research re: tort reform specifically I thought I'd share it with the masses.
Here's the TLDR version:
Enjoy!
starting off-
Of course the first argument is that there's really nothing preventing the states of the union from enacting their own versions of tort law, and naturally each state handles it pretty differently. Here's a nice guide as to what the ground rules are in each state.
The federalist argument is of course that States should get to decide what they want and not have tort laws dictated to them by Washington, and that is the current status quo. This allows each state to set up laws according to their own unique constituencies and encourages competition between states for the most effective laws. I'll admit that I'm not much of a federalist when it comes to public safety (though I am in other areas), but I'm just pointing out that the tort reform argument runs counter to the principles of capitalists and federalists because it asks Washington to set the tort laws uniformly for all states while removing the ability of states to offer competitive legislation.
moving on-
When evaluating any potential change you have to honestly evaluate what the specific change is, and look to concrete data. Texas, for example has pretty tight medical malpractice lawsuit caps. Texas also kills a lot of people in hospitals. Texas healthcare is also not measurably less expensive than in a state like Arizona, which does not cap malpractice suits. Here's a fun map of per capita health care expenditures by state.
Relevant data (referencing links given above):
continuing -
The arguments roots extend to the price of malpractice insurance. IOW, if you cap malpractice awards, then the price of malpractice insurance will go down, allowing doctors to charge less to patients. The problem is that the nation's largest malpractice insurer doesn't see it that way. Here's a quote from that article (emphasis mine):
last one, I promise-
The last leg of the tort reform argument is that doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine in order to avoid lawsuits. I'll not argue that this doesn't exist, but I will argue that there are better ways to address the problem than capping malpractice awards.
What are the incentives for a doc to order a questionable test on a guy?
Generally the point I'm going to make is that lots and lots and lots and lots of the money that pharmaceuticals and medical equipment manufacturers make goes to docs in the form of direct marketing. This means that the megacorp like Pfizer will send a rep to talk with a doc, usually by taking him out to lunch. He'll give him some free samples as part of a "clinical trial," and will encourage the doc to prescribe that drug to his patients in the future. Then he'll set up another meeting in 2 weeks. Oh yeah, and there are 1400 of these reps, doing this exact job, for every single doctor in this country.
Here's a fun exercise - Ask a doc when was the last time he bought lunch for himself. I'll put a couple of quick numbers in context (emphasis mine):
What happens is that every doctor in every hospital in every state has every lunch and many dinners bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical and medical equipment industry. They are also legally allowed to accept gifts like junkets and even cash/real estate from these entities. In return, try to walk into a hospital, make up and complain of any ailment, and walk away without a prescription for something. I'll bet you can't do it.
So what happens when we remove the fear of lawsuit incentive from docs? Well, we've left intact the biggest motivator that they have to continue with the junk tests and prescriptions - the free lunch, all while removing the ability of patients to receive the resources needed to cope with getting crippled - even if a jury of their peers deems that type of thing appropriate. Tort reformists would prefer Washington to make those decisions. The net effect is that you get what you see with the states that already have caps - no discernible effect on healthcare costs.
Here's the TLDR version:
- Its anti-states rights. Many states already have malpractice damage caps and all states could implement them if it suited them.
- It provably doesn't lower malpractice insurance premiums according to the biggest malpractice insurer.
- It doesn't even show a correlation between existence of malpractice caps and the price of healthcare - again, many states already have caps and the existence of those caps does not equate to lower heathcare costs.
- It doesn't remove the primary incentive for junk prescriptions and tests - payola. Industry spends billions each year directly influencing doctors.
- It gives away patients rights after they've been crippled by negligent docs, even if a jury agrees that they should have damages awarded.
Enjoy!
[Do] Tort reform.. ie the millions that are spent on protective medical practice that doctors spend on covering their ass against lawsuits.
Tort reform is interesting in just how little it would actually do to fix most of the major problems with the system and how much it would cost us as patients.starting off-
Of course the first argument is that there's really nothing preventing the states of the union from enacting their own versions of tort law, and naturally each state handles it pretty differently. Here's a nice guide as to what the ground rules are in each state.
The federalist argument is of course that States should get to decide what they want and not have tort laws dictated to them by Washington, and that is the current status quo. This allows each state to set up laws according to their own unique constituencies and encourages competition between states for the most effective laws. I'll admit that I'm not much of a federalist when it comes to public safety (though I am in other areas), but I'm just pointing out that the tort reform argument runs counter to the principles of capitalists and federalists because it asks Washington to set the tort laws uniformly for all states while removing the ability of states to offer competitive legislation.
moving on-
When evaluating any potential change you have to honestly evaluate what the specific change is, and look to concrete data. Texas, for example has pretty tight medical malpractice lawsuit caps. Texas also kills a lot of people in hospitals. Texas healthcare is also not measurably less expensive than in a state like Arizona, which does not cap malpractice suits. Here's a fun map of per capita health care expenditures by state.
Relevant data (referencing links given above):
- Texas caps malpractice pain and suffering awards at $250k
- per capita cost of healthcare in Texas $1728 (in 2004, best data I could find)
- Arizona does not cap malpractice on pain and suffering awards (Constitutionally prohibited there)
- per capita cost of healthcare in Az is $1479 in 2004
- The existence of a tight malpractice cap in Texas can't keep healthcare costs below what they are in Az, which has no cap.
- DC is far and away the most expensive district in the union in which to receive healthcare: $4081 per capita in 2004
- Heathcare in DC costs almost 3x as much as it does in Arizona
- Neither state has malpractice caps
- Almost every other state in the union has per capita healthcare costs in between these two states.
continuing -
The arguments roots extend to the price of malpractice insurance. IOW, if you cap malpractice awards, then the price of malpractice insurance will go down, allowing doctors to charge less to patients. The problem is that the nation's largest malpractice insurer doesn't see it that way. Here's a quote from that article (emphasis mine):
And then there's the reason for malpractice laws in the first place. If a doctor does a procedure on you and is grossly negligent, he can accidentally cripple you. In Texas there isn't much recourse if the doc you go to relieves you of your ability to use your legs. That gives lots of crappy docs lots of reason to come practice medicine here instead of in Arizona.GE Medical Protective's finding was made in a regulatory filing with the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI),in a document submitted by GE to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians' premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.
In 2003, Texas lawmakers passed a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage compensation to victims of medical malpractice caps after Medical Protective and other insurers lobbied for the change.
According to the Medical Protective filing: "Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%."
last one, I promise-
The last leg of the tort reform argument is that doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine in order to avoid lawsuits. I'll not argue that this doesn't exist, but I will argue that there are better ways to address the problem than capping malpractice awards.
What are the incentives for a doc to order a questionable test on a guy?
- minesweeping for anything he may have missed (science is hard)
- habit (dude has chest pain, lets get an ekg)
- fear of lawsuits
- and of course - money
Generally the point I'm going to make is that lots and lots and lots and lots of the money that pharmaceuticals and medical equipment manufacturers make goes to docs in the form of direct marketing. This means that the megacorp like Pfizer will send a rep to talk with a doc, usually by taking him out to lunch. He'll give him some free samples as part of a "clinical trial," and will encourage the doc to prescribe that drug to his patients in the future. Then he'll set up another meeting in 2 weeks. Oh yeah, and there are 1400 of these reps, doing this exact job, for every single doctor in this country.
Here's a fun exercise - Ask a doc when was the last time he bought lunch for himself. I'll put a couple of quick numbers in context (emphasis mine):
Currently, there are approximately 100,000 pharmaceutical sales reps in the United States[7] pursuing some 830,000 pharmaceutical prescribers. A pharmaceutical representative will often try to see a given physician every few weeks. Representatives often have a call list of about 200 physicians with 120 targets that should be visited in 1-2 week cycles.
The United States has 90,000 pharmaceutical representatives or 1 for every 6.3 physicians.[3]
Pharmaceutical company spending on marketing far exceeds that spend on research.[14][3] In 2004 in Canada $1.7 billion a year was spent marketing drugs to physicians and in the United States $21 billion were spent in 2002.[4] In 2005 money spent on pharmaceutical marketing in the US was estimated at $29.9 billion with one estimate as high as $57 billion.[3] When the US number are broken down 56% was free samples, 25% was detailing of physicians, 12.5% was direct to consumer advertising, 4% on hospital detailing, and 2% on journal ads.[4] In the United States approximately $20 billion could be saves if generics were used instead of equivalent brand name products.[3]
Currently, there are approximately 100,000 pharmaceutical sales reps in the United States pursuing some 120,000 pharmaceutical prescribers.[28] The number doubled in the four years from 1999 to 2003. Drug companies spend $5 billion annually sending representatives to physician offices. Pharmaceutical companies use the service of specialized healthcare marketing research companies to perform Marketing research among Physicians and other Healthcare professionals.
So what happens when we remove the fear of lawsuit incentive from docs? Well, we've left intact the biggest motivator that they have to continue with the junk tests and prescriptions - the free lunch, all while removing the ability of patients to receive the resources needed to cope with getting crippled - even if a jury of their peers deems that type of thing appropriate. Tort reformists would prefer Washington to make those decisions. The net effect is that you get what you see with the states that already have caps - no discernible effect on healthcare costs.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
the new Tim Tebow
Color me deeply, deeply skeptical.
To summarize, the problem for Tebow is that, because Florida placed so much stock in his running game, they never really developed some fundamental skills a quarterback has to have in the NFL, where being a rushing quarterback is not an option. Tebow took all his snaps from the shotgun, so his footwork on the 3/5 step drop is terrible.
And then there's that throwing motion.
Quarterbacks hold the ball at chest level after the snap. With most of them, when their man is open, they pull the ball back and up behind their ear, and from there go into their forward throwing motion. Tebow drops the ball down below his waistline and winds way back and up, doing a full 360 degree motion with his elbow. What that means is that Tebow holds onto the ball much longer than his peers and (supposedly) delivers a much lazier spiral. In a league where there's only a split second window where your man is open and you have to get him the ball in the blink of an eye, an elongated throwing motion can be a killer.
Of course, a similar critique was leveled at Vince Young, and it stopped him neither from getting drafted early in the first round nor from performing relatively well as an NFL quarterback (after some fits and starts, anyway). Admittedly, Tim Tebow is probably better than Young was. Maybe Tebow will come out of this training a fully formed NFL quarterback, but my guess is he's still a pretty major project for an ambitious coach with a healthy if aging franchise quarterback.
To summarize, the problem for Tebow is that, because Florida placed so much stock in his running game, they never really developed some fundamental skills a quarterback has to have in the NFL, where being a rushing quarterback is not an option. Tebow took all his snaps from the shotgun, so his footwork on the 3/5 step drop is terrible.
And then there's that throwing motion.
Quarterbacks hold the ball at chest level after the snap. With most of them, when their man is open, they pull the ball back and up behind their ear, and from there go into their forward throwing motion. Tebow drops the ball down below his waistline and winds way back and up, doing a full 360 degree motion with his elbow. What that means is that Tebow holds onto the ball much longer than his peers and (supposedly) delivers a much lazier spiral. In a league where there's only a split second window where your man is open and you have to get him the ball in the blink of an eye, an elongated throwing motion can be a killer.
Of course, a similar critique was leveled at Vince Young, and it stopped him neither from getting drafted early in the first round nor from performing relatively well as an NFL quarterback (after some fits and starts, anyway). Admittedly, Tim Tebow is probably better than Young was. Maybe Tebow will come out of this training a fully formed NFL quarterback, but my guess is he's still a pretty major project for an ambitious coach with a healthy if aging franchise quarterback.
the myth of welfare
The major justification for cutting unemployment and welfare programs in the 1990's and 2000's was to get John Q. Taxpayer out from under the collective dead weight of Reagan's welfare queens.
As we're discovering now, however, if you're intent on cutting these people out, there's really only one way to do it: cap unemployment benefits, either in terms of money or time (i.e., you only get $X worth of benefits per year or you can only draw money for X weeks every year). The problem with capping benefits, as perfectly depicted in this NYT piece, is that you throw out the baby with the bathwater. When the economy goes in the toilet (as it does every 10 to 20 years at least) the groups who are the first to lose their jobs and the last to find new ones rely on the long-term unemployment benefits that get the axe from the Reaganites. These people, however, are overwhelmingly from very groups that welfare was designed to protect in the first place: the poor, the unskilled, the old, and the sick, rather than some mythical group of lazy, yet eminently hireable able-bodied adults.
Put another way, the goal of welfare programs is to prevent homelessness and destitution. At any point in time when the economy is running short of full employment, however, benefit caps mean welfare cannot protect those in the most need of it. The choice, then, is between abiding some hireable people living off government largess on the one hand, and letting old and sick people become homeless on the other.
As we're discovering now, however, if you're intent on cutting these people out, there's really only one way to do it: cap unemployment benefits, either in terms of money or time (i.e., you only get $X worth of benefits per year or you can only draw money for X weeks every year). The problem with capping benefits, as perfectly depicted in this NYT piece, is that you throw out the baby with the bathwater. When the economy goes in the toilet (as it does every 10 to 20 years at least) the groups who are the first to lose their jobs and the last to find new ones rely on the long-term unemployment benefits that get the axe from the Reaganites. These people, however, are overwhelmingly from very groups that welfare was designed to protect in the first place: the poor, the unskilled, the old, and the sick, rather than some mythical group of lazy, yet eminently hireable able-bodied adults.
Put another way, the goal of welfare programs is to prevent homelessness and destitution. At any point in time when the economy is running short of full employment, however, benefit caps mean welfare cannot protect those in the most need of it. The choice, then, is between abiding some hireable people living off government largess on the one hand, and letting old and sick people become homeless on the other.
Friday, February 19, 2010
she won't have to worry about being called "pc"
I don't get offended by right wing shock talk much anymore. I get that 50% of it is just not "getting" something and 50% is just trying to get people to rile people up.
Sometimes, however, a slogan or image breaks through.
I actually feel pity for the girl more than anything. I'm one of those people that carries their embarrassing moments with them their entire life. I said some hateful stuff in my ignorant youth, and I still feel a twinge of humiliation anytime I'm reminded of those words, no matter if I said them all the way back in junior high. Generally speaking, though, I can at least take solace in the fact that I'm the only one who remembers them and they were never written down or videotaped.
I also think that the younger you are, the more likely you are to meet a gay person that you come to respect, or on the other hand have a good friend or beloved family member come out. Thus bigots become allies. This picture, however, is probably never going away; in fact, I'd wager that she's already identified herself with it already, on Facebook or some blog somewhere.
One day this woman is going to feel shame over this picture, and will have to live with the fact that it is forever linked to her name anytime anyone googles her.
Sometimes, however, a slogan or image breaks through.
I actually feel pity for the girl more than anything. I'm one of those people that carries their embarrassing moments with them their entire life. I said some hateful stuff in my ignorant youth, and I still feel a twinge of humiliation anytime I'm reminded of those words, no matter if I said them all the way back in junior high. Generally speaking, though, I can at least take solace in the fact that I'm the only one who remembers them and they were never written down or videotaped.
I also think that the younger you are, the more likely you are to meet a gay person that you come to respect, or on the other hand have a good friend or beloved family member come out. Thus bigots become allies. This picture, however, is probably never going away; in fact, I'd wager that she's already identified herself with it already, on Facebook or some blog somewhere.
One day this woman is going to feel shame over this picture, and will have to live with the fact that it is forever linked to her name anytime anyone googles her.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
the stimulus worked
So says David Leonhardt of the New York Times. Hard to run on "it could have been worse, trust us," but it's good to know it was the right decision.
If there's anything I hope people learn from all the discussions of economic stimulus and tax cuts and budgets, it's how connected the federal budget is to your schools, your roads, your friends' and family's and neighbors' jobs, and your local services that you rely on every day. A tremendous amount of federal taxpayer money flows down to the state and local level. Add in Medicare and Social Security, which directly benefit pretty much every person you know over 65, and we're talking about most of the federal budget.
If there's anything I hope people learn from all the discussions of economic stimulus and tax cuts and budgets, it's how connected the federal budget is to your schools, your roads, your friends' and family's and neighbors' jobs, and your local services that you rely on every day. A tremendous amount of federal taxpayer money flows down to the state and local level. Add in Medicare and Social Security, which directly benefit pretty much every person you know over 65, and we're talking about most of the federal budget.
taxes only fund waste
Mishawaka cutting twenty five teachers. In a town of fewer than 50,000 people, that's a lot!
When the local government is short $4.7 million over 2 years, this is what it cuts, not some mythical victimless "government waste." Twenty five families will be pushed into financial upheaval, with the possibility in some cases of mortgage default and bankruptcy. Classrooms will grow that much larger and the other teachers will have to pick up the slack with classes that much more difficult to manage. Students all over the school district will get that much less individual attention.
The amount of money Mishawaka residents will save per capita on average: $51 per year. About $4 a month.
When the local government is short $4.7 million over 2 years, this is what it cuts, not some mythical victimless "government waste." Twenty five families will be pushed into financial upheaval, with the possibility in some cases of mortgage default and bankruptcy. Classrooms will grow that much larger and the other teachers will have to pick up the slack with classes that much more difficult to manage. Students all over the school district will get that much less individual attention.
The amount of money Mishawaka residents will save per capita on average: $51 per year. About $4 a month.
Monday, February 15, 2010
ABTs
Go figure. I find the newest rage in absurd, overmeated party food right after the Superbowl.
Don't worry, locals; they'll be appearing at my house sometime this summer.
Don't worry, locals; they'll be appearing at my house sometime this summer.
Friday, February 12, 2010
NCAA: celebration penalty may negate touchdowns next year
From AP(via Matt Hinton):
My opinion on rules in games is that you shouldn't adopt a rule you don't intend to enforce. More specifically, you shouldn't adopt a rule if you aren't willing to change the outcome of the game over it.
In the last season or two we've seen multiple instances of celebration/taunting calls that gave the other team a chance to win after the fact, and the outcry was so intense in one case (A.J. Green's go-ahead TD against LSU) that the SEC fined one of its own refs and forced him to apologize. Imagine for a second the outcry if such of touchdown were called back outright and the other team holds on to win. Imagine that happening in the final minutes of the SEC championship or the Rose Bowl or, God forbid, the National "Championship" Game.
I get that this is a rule specifically against taunting, rather than the general endzone merriment and evil, evil ball tossing of the Jake Locker variety, but Green's infamous unsportsmanslike conduct flag was supposedly for taunting en route to the goal line. Even by the standards of college football rules, taunting is in the eye of the beholder, especially considering the trash talking and psychological warfare that likely goes on out of earshot of the microphones.
This rule is just dying to cause the NCAA more headaches.
If passed, players who draw flags for taunting gestures on their way to a touchdown would have the penalty assessed from the spot of the foul, taking away the score. Penalties that occur in the end zone would continue to be assessed on the extra-point attempt, 2-point conversion try or ensuing kickoff.
The change would take effect in 2011 and on the NCAA's web site, a release said the proposal received near-unanimous support.
"Taunting and prolonged individual acts have no place in our game, and our officials have generally handled these rules well," said former Oregon coach Mike Bellotti, the committee chair. "This is just another step in maintaining our game's image and reflecting the ideals of the NCAA overall."
My opinion on rules in games is that you shouldn't adopt a rule you don't intend to enforce. More specifically, you shouldn't adopt a rule if you aren't willing to change the outcome of the game over it.
In the last season or two we've seen multiple instances of celebration/taunting calls that gave the other team a chance to win after the fact, and the outcry was so intense in one case (A.J. Green's go-ahead TD against LSU) that the SEC fined one of its own refs and forced him to apologize. Imagine for a second the outcry if such of touchdown were called back outright and the other team holds on to win. Imagine that happening in the final minutes of the SEC championship or the Rose Bowl or, God forbid, the National "Championship" Game.
I get that this is a rule specifically against taunting, rather than the general endzone merriment and evil, evil ball tossing of the Jake Locker variety, but Green's infamous unsportsmanslike conduct flag was supposedly for taunting en route to the goal line. Even by the standards of college football rules, taunting is in the eye of the beholder, especially considering the trash talking and psychological warfare that likely goes on out of earshot of the microphones.
This rule is just dying to cause the NCAA more headaches.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Tim Tebow: even his ads prefer procreation
Apparently there will be a second, pre-game version of the already infamous Tebow/Focus on the Family Superbowl ad:
Apparently they will both be of the "choose life" message variety that, though intended as a witty riposte from the anti-Roe crowd, has on occasion been embraced by members of the other side as a message that still preaches choice.
I'm increasingly skeptical on that point, but the heretofore detente on that message is important to point out here.
Also important to point out, however, are the implications of the Tebow ad outside of those considerations. For those who don't know the story, I'll quote his Wikipedia page:
So Mrs. Tebow essentially undertook a significant risk to her own life to have Tim. It's moving, and of course things worked out wonderfully for her and we're all very happy for her. She's very lucky.
Nevertheless, is it really responsible to advocate for women to hold out on life-saving procedures on the off chance that they'll both survive anyway and have super-moral, Heisman-winning sons? The Tebows rolled the dice on her life to save his, and happened to win big that time, but many others wouldn't be so lucky. I wonder if Mrs. Tebow or any of the people who are using her story to push their political agendas have considered the possibility of some woman in her position acting on her advice, and instead of delivering the next Tim Tebow, dying from complications while giving birth to a stillborn baby. God does not save every woman with a placental abruption, let alone every baby.
There's a new Super Bowl surprise from Focus on the Family: a second ad.
The evangelical group that bought ad time in the CBS game telecast will announce today that it has bought time in the pregame show to air a second ad four times.
The new ad also features star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. It was filmed in Orlando last month at the same time as the group's controversial — though yet unseen — in-game ad.
Apparently they will both be of the "choose life" message variety that, though intended as a witty riposte from the anti-Roe crowd, has on occasion been embraced by members of the other side as a message that still preaches choice.
I'm increasingly skeptical on that point, but the heretofore detente on that message is important to point out here.
Also important to point out, however, are the implications of the Tebow ad outside of those considerations. For those who don't know the story, I'll quote his Wikipedia page:
Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in Makati City in the Philippines, to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time.[1][7] While pregnant, Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life.[1] She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.
So Mrs. Tebow essentially undertook a significant risk to her own life to have Tim. It's moving, and of course things worked out wonderfully for her and we're all very happy for her. She's very lucky.
Nevertheless, is it really responsible to advocate for women to hold out on life-saving procedures on the off chance that they'll both survive anyway and have super-moral, Heisman-winning sons? The Tebows rolled the dice on her life to save his, and happened to win big that time, but many others wouldn't be so lucky. I wonder if Mrs. Tebow or any of the people who are using her story to push their political agendas have considered the possibility of some woman in her position acting on her advice, and instead of delivering the next Tim Tebow, dying from complications while giving birth to a stillborn baby. God does not save every woman with a placental abruption, let alone every baby.
Monday, February 01, 2010
the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, not just citizens
I'm glad to see Greenwald drop-kicking this old right wing chestnut, but I'm a little surprised that it took so long to see such an article.
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of the American legal system. It does not matter whether they are citizens or foreign nationals because the Bill of Rights makes no such distinctions and court precedence has held as much since at least the 19th century. Greenwald pulls up a court decision where even Antonin Scalia admits as much.
Pointing out the absurdity of such a claim, Greenwald asks:
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of the American legal system. It does not matter whether they are citizens or foreign nationals because the Bill of Rights makes no such distinctions and court precedence has held as much since at least the 19th century. Greenwald pulls up a court decision where even Antonin Scalia admits as much.
Pointing out the absurdity of such a claim, Greenwald asks:
There are millions of foreign nationals inside the U.S. at all times -- not only illegally but also legally: as tourists, students, workers, Green Card holders, etc. Is there anyone who really believes that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them? If a foreign national is arrested and accused by the U.S. Government of committing a crime, does anyone believe they can be sentenced to prison without a jury trial, denied the right to face their accusers, have their property seized without due process, be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and be denied access to counsel? Anyone who claims that the Constitution only protects American citizens, but not foreigners, would necessarily have to claim that the U.S. Government could do all of that to foreign nationals. Does anyone believe that? Would it be Constitutionally permissible to own foreigners as slaves on the ground that the protections of the Constitution -- including the Thirteenth Amendment -- apply only to Americans, not foreigners?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)